Why does everyone hate 3.5 loads

[sinisterevil01]

The reason I bought a 3.5 inch shotgun was because by what I've heard and read the shotgun is the most versatile weapon in hunting and in most cases you can hunt just about anything. besides what if I bought a smaller receiver size and decide later that I want to try a larger size wouldn't you want to have that available to you instead of having to buy another gun just change the type of ammo.

 

[oneounceload]

3.5 inch shells HURT. Their main purpose is for no-tox goose loads; otherwise, there isn't anything that a 2.75 or 3" shell can't do with regular loadings.....(and I own a gun with a 3.5" chamber that will never even see a 3" shell)

 

[waidmann]

Obviously not everyone hates 3 1/2 inch shells. They sell enough guns and shells to continue manufacturing them. Their usefulness is largely confined to waterfowl, turkey and somewhat buckshot (at least in 10 ga.).

I suppose you studied the subject before making your choice and for the foreseeable future are committed to owning one gun so be it.

By-the-way what model and gauge did you bring home?

 

[sinisterevil01]

Obviously not everyone hates 3 1/2 inch shells. They sell enough guns and shells to continue manufacturing them. Their usefulness is largely confined to waterfowl, turkey and somewhat buckshot (at least in 10 ga.).

I suppose you studied the subject before making your choice and for the foreseeable future are committed to owning one gun so be it.

By-the-way what model and gauge did you bring home?

Brought home two a Benelli Super Nova 12 gauge pump field model and a Remington 20 gauge semi auto your right tho 3.5 shells do hurt.

 

[Capstick1]

If you're going to get a dedicated 3.5" chambered waterfowl/goose hunting shotgun, spend the extra money on a good semiauto. It's alot less painful on your shoulder. Some good candidates would be the Browning Gold/Silver Hunter, Beretta A400 Explor, Mossberg 935, Remington Versamax. In most states it's mandatory to use nontoxic steel shot when hunting waterfowl and geese. That's really about the only time that 3.5" shells would be worth using. Don't sell the 2 3/4" and the 3" steel shot magnums short though. Many a duck or turkey has been killed by these smaller shells.

 

[Fred Fuller]

"Not having any use for" is not the same thing as "hate."

I don't own a single shotgun that will shoot 3 1/2" shells. I looked at the first SuperMag 870 that came to hand pretty carefully and ran it a bit. I didn't like it. Most of all I didn't NEED it, or whatever advantages it supposedly offered. So I passed on it. I don't hunt waterfowl or turkeys, which are among the few places the supposed advantages of 3.5" shells might come into play.

Thing is, I can do all I need to do with a 12 gauge with 2.75" shells. Many of the newer guns around here have 3" chambers. I've experimented with some 3" shells for various applications. But as things stand now I don't need more than I can get out of the 2.75" shells available to me.

Ever read Bob Brister's Shotgunning: The Art And The Science? That might explain the reasons why long shot strings don't work as well as shorter ones better than I can...

lpl

 

[6x6pinz]

I prefer a small bore shotgun for the challenge it provides. When it comes to waterfowl hunting I have found that for duck most of the time 3" non tox rounds work just fine. I have also found that the added payload of the 3 1/2" non tox round is a great advantage. It is not that I get a bigger pattern just more dense. The 3 1/2" round just puts more pellets in a bird which yields more birds on the ground.
Them darn geese are just hard to bring down at any range. The more pellets the better when it comes to dropping geese.
I don't use over 2 boxes a year of 3 1/2 but I sure do like the performance when I do use them.

 

[Fiv3r]

Yeah, chalk me up as someone who has zero use for a 3.5 shell. I have an 870 that'll eat 3's, but I've never fired anything bigger than a 2.75 in any gun.

I know the tempting thing about the 3 and 3.5" chambers is that it gives you a gun that will feed anything under any situation. But even in the worst part of the ammo drought, I still saw about 100 boxes of 2.75 to every 1 box of 3". The 3.5" ones were still just a couple boxes untouched on the shelves.

 

[okiewita40]

I have never needed anything bigger than a 2.75 shell. Not even for waterfowl. Have only shot a 3" once and decided that 2.75" is enough. But hey it's your shoulder do what you want.

 

[RickMD]

The only legitimate use of a 3 1/2" shell is hunting waterfowl or turkeys where the use of lead shot is prohibited. Even then it's advantage over a 3" load is contestable. I've owned more 12 gauge guns than I can remember and I never found a real need for any load greater than a 2 3/4" high brass shell. Of course I'm not a migratory bird hunter nor do I live in an area where lead shot is restricted. In the world of shotguns bigger ain't always better.

 

[Robert]

I'd just rather have a 10ga.

 

[RaceM]

I love the 3 1/2 shells. Very versatile for rolling your own as to payload choice. To keep from beating yourself to death with them you need a heavier gun with an aftermarket recoil pad or go for a semi-auto. My current piece of man-portable artillery for 3.5 is an 835 Mossberg with a LimbSaver pad and fitted stock. Do I feed it a steady diet of 2.25 oz turkey loads? Nope, I ain't a masochist. But I have run an entire box of 1.75 oz loads through it at one go. It blows stuff up REAL good.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I don't hate them, my shoulder on the other hand...

 

[rule303]

The guns that handle them end up being too heavy and akward for upland hunting and clay sports, and too light (too much recoil)for high volume waterfowl hunting with heavy loads. The 3.5" 12ga loads also don't pattern nearly as well as a similar load in a 10ga. They have their uses, but if you are looking for one gun to do it all, stick with a 3" gun.

 

[DAP90]

There are some recoil junkies around here but I’m not one of them. Even if there is a big increase in performance in a 3.5”, it’s not worth the punishment.

 

[mrecanatini]

If i may chime in... Take a look at the Xtreme

 

[Dave McCracken]

I've yet to need a 3.5" load, but I'm only 64.....

 

[roadchoad]

From what I remember, the 3.5 came out as non-toxic shot was required for waterfowl. Since steel was the only non-toxic shot at the time, they needed a larger payload volume of the 3.5 case to get the same mass of the less-dense steel shot in each shell.

I don't have a "need" for 3.5s, but it is nice to be able to shoot cheaper steel BB rather than the more expensive tungsten/bismuth/hevi type shot. I did buy the gun because it was chambered in 3.5 for this reason.

The recoil is not near as bad as a 2oz 3" mag turkey load, IMO.

And when the SHTF and the run is on for 2.75 and 3" shells, I'll have my pick of 3.5s that no one else can use LOL

 

[bearman49709]

I use steel shot for waterfowl, never saw a need for 3 1/2" shells as 2 3/4" and 3" kill ducks and geese fine.

 

[T Bran]

When I first bought my 835 Mossberg I took it out for patterning with a variety of loads and choke tubes if you ever shoot a 3.5'' inch #4 buck shell through an extra full choke be sure to have a good chiropractor on standby. After all of the unnessicary punishment I determined that 2.75 inch 00 buck through an impmod tube is actually the most consistant performer in that gun. I now carry my old 500 Mossberg since it is both lighter and it patterns better than the 835 with the same shells. I kept the 835 to remind me that bigger aint allways better and to allow others to reach the same conclusion without having to purchase their own torture device.
T

 

[Capstick1]

One of my shotguns is a 3.5" chambered Browning Citori Hunter. This is an excellent skeet/sporting clays gun but I doubt that I will ever shoot any 3.5" magnum shells out of it. That's alot of pain to put my shoulder through. I'll probably continue to stick with a steady diet of various 2 3/4" loads and maybe use some 3" mags once in a great while if I decide to go duck hunting with this.

 

[SHR970]

The guns that handle them end up being too heavy and akward for upland hunting and clay sports, and too light (too much recoil)for high volume waterfowl hunting with heavy loads. The 3.5" 12ga loads also don't pattern nearly as well as a similar load in a 10ga. They have their uses, but if you are looking for one gun to do it all, stick with a 3" gun.

I got my 835 in the early days of steel shot. Ran plenty of 3.5" loads through it in a weekend. When you are standing in 30 something degree water in 30 something degree weather, you'll find that your clothing soaks up a fair amount of that recoil.

The steel loads available in the early 90's were pretty bad as far as performance was concerned. Moreover, the wads that were used by some manufacturers really stank. That was the reason for many complaints of poor patterns. My gun wouldn't pattern Rem.s worth a darn, but when you had two petals that wouldn't open*, what do you expect? (I routinely found wads where one or two petals hadn't opened up.) I found Fed. loads were much better and more consistant. We have had plenty of time for the industry to make better steel loads and several other nontox. alternatives have been approved.


For payload, if you wanted to shoot goose, you needed BB's in steel and that still didn't mean you would get a clean kill. More often than not, you needed multiple shots to down them. The early shells went the route of as much steel as possible which meant reduced velocity. Now we have high speed shells that give up some payload; these are much better in the field.

Last, steel shot poor patterns in the early days was compunded by the fact that steel behaves in chokes differently than lead and some nontox loads. Different tubes had to be developed to deal with this. All too often, people don't match their tubes to their loads.

Just my $.02 based on close to 20 years with my 835.

 

[mgregg85]

I've fired a few 3.5" shells in a semi-auto, the first time I did it with the thumb right hand hooked over the top of the stock(the normal way anyone grips a shotgun or rifle) and when I fired my hand came back and hit me in the face. I quickly learned to keep my whole hand on the right side of the stock so when I fired the next round it didn't hit my nose again.

I'm fine with 2 3/4" rounds, if I need a little boost I'll use the 3 inchers but thats it.

 

[MyGreenGuns]

The only reason I 'dislike' 3.5" is because I bought a bunch of 00 buck in 3" and didnt notice one box of 3.5" mixed in. I dont have a gun that can handle that round. I've actually never shot 3.5". Im torn between trying to sell this box, or just buy a gun that can handle them. My .02

 

[Gunnerboy]

Man you guys that are whining about the 3.5in shells must have not grown up shooting much im 5,10 and 130lbs and ive shot thru boxes of 3.5 shells including turkey loads, and the recoil out of a semi is the same as a 3in shell in a 870 which is darn near non existant.